IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

WPA No. 6074 of 2025

Mir Hossain Alanur

Versus

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution

Company Limited & Ors.

Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay

Mr. Arjun Samanta

Mr. Ankit Chatterjee

Ms. Trishtrya Mancherji

.....For the petitioner.

Mr. Asif Dewan

.....For WBSEDCL.

Hearing Concluded On : 17.11.2025 Judgment on : 27.11.2025

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The issue in the present writ application whether the subsequent purchaser is liable to pay the pending electric consumption charges of the previous owner for obtaining new electric connection.

2. The petitioner along with his brother, namely, Md. Alamgir Hossain Alanur jointly purchased the land measuring an area of 05.25 decimals situated in L.R. and R.S. Dag No. 332, Mouza- Kalijug Biswanathpur, JL No. 81, Police Station Deganga, District- North 24 Parganas by way of a Sale Deed dated 7th June, 2024 being deed No. 151005760 of 2024 registered with the Additional District Sub Registrar, Deganga. The land measuring an area of 0.02 acres out of total area 05.25 decimals mutated in the name of the petitioner in the Records of Rights.

3. After mutation of the said property in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner had been to the office of the respondents for grant of new electric connection in the name of the petitioner but the respondents refused to accept the application of the petitioner on the pretext that the previous owner has arrears of electricity bill which need to be cleared first. The respondents have handed over the bill in the name of erstwhile owner for payment of dues of the arears of electricity charges.

4. Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay, Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that thereafter, the petitioner made an online application for a new electricity connection and paid all necessary charges but inspite of the same, the respondents have not provided electricity connection in the premise of the petitioner.

5. Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that it is a settled position of law that subsequent occupier of the premises is not liable to pay the dues of his predecessors–in–title or possession unless nexus between the two is proved. He submits that the petitioner is only the purchaser of the property in question and there is no nexus between the petitioner and the previous owner.

6. Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that it is an obligation on the part of the respondents to provide electric connection in the premises of the petitioner as the electricity is an essential service and the same cannot be denied by the authority. He submits that the petitioner without electricity is facing great difficulties.

7. Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that the seller has executed an undertaking stating that, if any, problem arises from the electric office in future with the said meter, the seller has full responsibility and he will solve the problem. He submits that from the sale deed itself reveals that there is no nexus between the petitioner and the seller.

8. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Others Vs. Transmission and Distribution (India) Limited reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 667 and submits that in the said case also the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the sale deed did not contained any condition for payment of outstanding dues of the previous owner nor has proved any nexus between the writ petitioner and the previous owner. It is held that in terms of the Regulation, the nexus is required to be established.

9. Mr. Chattopadhyay has further relied upon the judgment in the case of Moumita Ghosh Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 3014 and submits that there was no question of the purchaser deriving any benefit from the default or having any nexus with the purchasers.

10. Mr. Asif Dewan, Learned Advoc